What is the scientific evidence for Creationism?

 

Response to comment [from an atheist]:  "Creationism is religion, not science."

 

You could say the same of evolution. Evolution is religion not science. Same empirical data. Different interpretations.

Science is not the issue. Worldviews are at issue.

"Evolutionists are not prepared to change their actual belief that all life can be explained by natural processes and that no God is involved (or even needed). Evolution is the religion to which they are committed (Ham, Evolution is a Religion Pt III).

See:

 Do real scientists believe in Creation?

War of Worldviews

 

Response to comment [from a "Christian"]:  "...mutations are random and not directed..."

"Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome [Ibid., 159–160]..." full text: [URL="http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-there-really-a-god#fnList_1_20"] Is There Really a God?[/URL]

"There are literally thousands of examples of the unique adaptations that suit each type of organism for its special role in the web of life..." [URL="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch1-adaptation.asp"]Adaptation and ecology: the marvelous fit of organisms to their environment [/URL]

Response to comment [from a Catholic]: " The creationists have re-interpreted "land" to mean "whole world." The Bible does not say the whole world was flooded."

 

Scars tell stories (Isa 53:5).  The Bible teaches a worldwide flood.  There is overwhelming evidence for this.

"Even conservative Christians, although professing belief in the divine inspiration of Scripture, have often ignored the significance of the Flood. They have been intimidated by the evolutionary geologists and paleontologists who, for over a hundred years, have insisted that all of earth history should be explained in terms of slow development over great ages by the operation of the same natural processes which now prevail, completely rejecting the concept of the universal Flood at the dawn of history. Many Christians have attempted to work out a compromise with evolutionary geology by explaining the Flood as a local flood, caused by a great overflow of the Euphrates or some other river in the Middle East. It must be settled here, therefore, first of all, that the Bible record does describe a universal, world-destroying Flood.
Genesis 7:17, 18
In the next several verses of Genesis 7 appear a considerable number of reasons to prove that the Bible is describing a worldwide Flood, not a local flood. Some of these are as follows:
(1)     The wording of the entire record, both here and throughout Genesis 6–9, could not be improved on, if the intention of the writer was to describe a universal Flood; as a description of a river overflow, it is completely misleading and exaggerated, to say the least.
(2)     Expressions involving universality of the Flood and its effects occur more than thirty times in Genesis 6–9.
(3)     The Flood “was [or better, ‘was coming’] forty days upon the earth.” A continual downpour lasting for forty days, concurrently with a bursting of great clefts in the crust (verses 11–12) would be impossible under present uniformitarian conditions.
(4)     The Flood which came on the earth was the mabbul, a word used solely in connection with the Noahic Flood. The ordinary Hebrew words for a local flood are not used here at all.
(5)     The water rise was quickly sufficient to “bear up the ark,” indicating a depth of at least twenty feet in the earliest stages of the Flood, since the Ark was at least forty-four feet high and heavily loaded. As already noted, the Ark was far too large to accommodate a mere regional fauna and was more than adequate to house two of every species of land animal in the whole world, living or extinct.
(6)     As the rains continued, the waters “prevailed,” a word which means, literally, “were overwhelmingly mighty,” and would be quite inappropriate in the setting of a local flood. Job 12:15 says that the waters “overturned the earth.”
(7)     The construction, outfitting, and stocking of the Ark, so that it “went upon the face of the waters” had all been an absurd waste of time and money if the Flood were to be only a local flood. Migration would have been a far better solution to the problem, for Noah as well as the birds and beasts.
Genesis 7:19, 20
The record of the Flood gives every indication of being an eyewitness account, written originally by either Noah or his sons, probably the latter. As the account advances, it becomes more and more obvious that these witnesses intended to describe what they firmly believed to be a worldwide, uniquely destructive cataclysm. Some other reasons are as follows:
(8)     The waters covered all the “high hills” and the “mountains” (“hills” and “mountains” are the same word in the original, the repetition being a case of Hebrew parallelism for the purpose of emphasis).
(9)     The waters not only “were overwhelmingly mighty” (translated “prevailed” in verse 18) but “prevailed exceedingly” over the earth.
(10)     All the mountains “under the whole heaven” were inundated under at least fifteen cubits of water (half the height of the Ark, probably representing its depth of submergence), telling us that the Ark could float freely over all the mountains. These would patently include at least the mountains of Ararat, the highest peak of which reaches 17,000 feet. A 17,000-foot Flood is not a local flood!
(11)     The mountains were “covered.” The Hebrew word here, kasah, conveys a very positive emphasis; it could well be rendered “overwhelmed,” as it is translated in some instances. The waters not only inundated the mountains but eventually washed them away.
(12)     A double superlative—“all the high mountains under all the heavens”—cannot possibly allow the use of the word “all” here in a “relative” sense, as sometimes maintained by proponents of the local flood theory.
Genesis 7:21–23
(13)     “All flesh died that moved upon the earth.” In a local flood, most of the fauna can escape death by fleeing the rising waters or by swimming to dry ground if necessary (or by flying away, in the case of birds); but this would be impossible in a universal Flood.
(14)     “Every man” died, in accordance with the very purpose of the Flood. In a local flood, most people escape. Furthermore, there is no longer any question that ancient man occupied the entire globe at a date (as calculated by anthropologists, at least) much earlier than the date of any supposed “local flood” corresponding to the event described in Genesis. A local flood would not have reached “every man.”
(15)     Not only did everything with “the breath of life” die (this including animals, as well as man, further confirming that animals possess the ruach, or “spirit” of life), but so was “every living substance destroyed.” The word translated “living substance” is one word in Hebrew, yequm, and is simply translated “substance” in Deuteronomy 11:6. It clearly refers here to vegetation, as well as animals. In fact, God had told Noah: “I will destroy man with the earth” (Genesis 6:13).
(16)     Only Noah and those with him in the Ark survived the Flood, so that all present men are descended from Noah’s three sons (see also Genesis 9:1, 19). Likewise, all the earth’s present dry-land animals came of those on the Ark (Genesis 8:17, 19; 9:10). The very purpose of God had been to destroy all other living men (Genesis 6:7) and land animals (Genesis 6:17, 7:22).
Genesis 7:24
For the third time the word “prevailed” is used (see comments on verses 18 and 20), this time indicating that the waters prevailed 150 days. It was not until after this period that the “fountains of the deep” and the “windows of heaven” were shut (8:2) and the waters began to retreat. The extreme duration of the Flood indicates still further Biblical reasons for regarding it as universal.
(17)     No local flood continues to rise for 150 days.
(18)     Even after the waters began to abate, and the Ark grounded on the highest of the mountains of Ararat (Genesis 8:4), it was another 21/2 months before the tops of other mountains could be seen (8:5).
(19)     Even after four months of receding flood waters, the dove sent out by Noah could find no dry land on which to light (8:9).
(20)     It was over an entire year (7:11; 8:13) before enough land had been exposed to permit the occupants to leave the Ark.
In view of all the above considerations, it is almost inconceivable that men professing to believe the Bible could endorse the local flood theory. Nevertheless, many evangelicals have been so intimidated by the pretensions of modern scholarship that they would sooner give up “the praise of God” than “the praise of men” (John 12:43).
To the above twenty reasons may be appended the following additional Biblical reasons for believing in a worldwide flood:1
(21)     God’s promise never to send such a Flood again (Genesis 8:21; 9:11, 15) has been broken repeatedly if it were only a local or regional flood.
(22)     The New Testament uses a unique term (kataklusmos, “cataclysm”) for the Flood (Matthew 24:39; Luke 17:27; 2 Peter 2:5; 3:6) instead of the usual Greek word for “flood.”
(23)     New cosmological conditions came into being after the Flood, including sharply denned seasons (Genesis 8:22), the rainbow along with rain (Genesis 2:5; 9:13–14), and enmity between man and beasts (Genesis 9:2).
(24)     Man’s longevity began a long, slow decline immediately after the Flood (compare Genesis 5 and Genesis 11).
(25)     Later Biblical writers accepted the universal Flood (note Job 12:15; 22:16; Psalm 29:10; 104:6–9; Isaiah 54:9; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5; 3:5, 6; Hebrews 11:7).
(26)     The Lord Jesus Christ accepted the historicity and universality of the Flood, even making it the climactic sign and type of the coming worldwide judgment when He returns (Matthew 24:37–39; Luke 17:26, 27).
As will be noted in the next section, there is also strong geological evidence for the universal Flood, rather than for uniformitarianism and evolution. Regardless of any real or imagined geological difficulties, however, the Word of God teaches unequivocally that the Flood was worldwide in its extent and cataclysmic in its effects. The only course legitimately open to Bible-believing Christians is to reinterpret the geological data to conform to this Biblical revelation."
1 In Appendix 5, there are listed a total of one hundred Biblical and scientific reasons for believing that the Flood was worldwide.
Morris, Henry M.: The Genesis Record : A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings. Grand Rapids, MI : Baker Books, 1976, S. 199

 

What is the scientific evidence for Creationism?